>>>>...I believe I know why nothing ever gets done on important issues like Social Security, and that reason has been exemplified by the way that this forum has progressed. Yes, there have been some very good comments on both sides of the issue. However, I have noticed that whenever a comment is made, all focus is directed to a line-by- line examination of what is horribly wrong with the other person's arguments. Instead of looking at proposals in a larger sense, in order to find the worthwhile concepts in each proposal, and finding ways to merge good ideas from all sides, we want to find the inherent flaws with every other person's arguments.
Jeremy,
Let me respond, since I am one who frequently uses a line-by-line examination. I disagree with your analysis. If the only purpose of this forum is to replace the current system with anything else, then you may be right. If the purpose of this forum is look at honestly where we are, and what is the best path for the future, then you are wrong.
There is no shortage of criticisms of the current system, many of them valid. But if we are to compare the current system with all its flaws with an alternative, then we need to look at the flaws in the alternative. They all have some. But of course, most people pushing an alternative avoid pointing out the weak points of their plan, or indeed, may not even see them. That is the role of a debate. The free market of ideas is used to weed out those alternatives that don't make the grade.
It seems to me, those most interested in a free market alternative, are those who are least willing to discuss the shortcomings of their plans. IMHO, that is the worst thing for their plan. Whatever the result of the nationwide SS reform debate (not just this forum), there are going to be powerful interests pushing in both directions. Go into that environment with a SS reform plan riddled with holes, and you lose. It's as simple as that. The proper response to a line-by-line criticism of your plan is to honestly read the criticism. Point out to the poster the REASONS you think they are wrong. Not 'you stupid liberal' or 'the rich are greedy', but well thought out clarifications, citations, links or a logical explaination of why you think the other poster is wrong. If it is just a philosophical difference, you can always say 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. Or maybe, you might say 'You're right, I never thought of that'. That would probably be their best revenge, since the critic would probably suffer a massive coronary from the shock!
The problem with just finding the 'good' in another's proposal is that they will probably resent that even more. Unless you can show that there are problems, on what basis can you take only part of it, the 'worthwhile concepts'? That is 'insulting' the plan with out pointing out the reasons. And, isn't that part of the purpose of this forum? To get down to the specifics? And, the problem is such that you can't necessarily take a bunch of 'worthwhile concepts' and put them together. The ultimate SS reform must be well designed. Good aspects of one plan don't necessarily lend themselves to another. Allowing certain people to opt out of a private account plan has different implications than it would for the current SS system. The 'concept' must be evaluated in terms of the overall plan.
If somebody is so wrapped up in their SS reform proposal that they can't stand criticism, then a debate forum is no place for them. They should just post their plan, and never read another posting, because they are bound to be disappointed.
